Catherine R. Locallo, Robbins Schwartz, Chicago
312-332-7760 | Email Catherine R. Locallo
Seventh Circuit Upholds Employer Victory on Discrimination and Retaliation Claims
The Seventh Circuit’s decision in Lewis v. Indiana Department of Transportation, No. 25-1776, 2026 WL 1090714 (7th Cir. Apr. 22, 2026), provides important insights for employers regarding the handling of discrimination and retaliation claims under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), Pub.L. No. 93-112, 87 Stat. 355, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), Pub.L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241. This decision underscores the importance of understanding the causation standards and the necessity of maintaining clear documentation of employee performance issues.
Background
Keisha Lewis (Lewis), worked for the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) from December 2014 to December 2022. Her job responsibilities included reviewing and approving federal relocation claim vouchers for assistant payments. 2026 WL 1090714 at *1.
In 2021, INDOT conducted a job review, and Lewis received a promotion and a raise. Lewis, who is African American, claimed the raise was insufficient because a white male colleague received a higher raise. INDOT explained that this was because the colleague’s base salary was lower than Lewis’s, so he received a higher percentage raise. Id.
Following the COVID-19 pandemic, INDOT employees returned to the office by summer 2022. Lewis requested and received a work accommodation to work from home based on health issues related to her kidney transplant and compromised immune system. Lewis began to refuse work assigned as part of her job duties, and her supervisor stepped in to monitor work and initiated daily virtual check-ins. Id.
Lewis was informed by her supervisor that the failure to perform job duties was insubordination. The supervisor also requested additional documentation to support her work accommodation based on a recent social media post about Lewis attending a high school football game. Id.
Lewis filed several internal complaints. Lewis was permitted to keep her work accommodation, and the complaints were dismissed. 2026 WL 1090714 at *2.
Lewis’s supervisor reported continued concerns with her performance and refusal to perform work. This included being late to meetings, refusing to complete productivity reports and work logs, and ongoing concerns with her backlog of late projects. The supervisor continued to document this but did not issue discipline for fear of retaliation. Id.
The last straw was when Lewis again refused work; INDOT then realized that the backlog of work was significant and put INDOT at risk for loss of federal funding. INDOT terminated her employment based on poor performance and insubordinate conduct. Id.
Lewis sued INDOT, alleging that her termination was due to disability discrimination, race discrimination, and retaliation for filing a complaint, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act, Title VII, and 42 U.S.C. §1981. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of INDOT, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed this decision.
The Seventh Circuit’s Decision
Discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act requires proof that the adverse action occurred “solely by reason of” disability, which is a stricter standard than the ADA’s but-for causation. 2026 WL 1090714 at **3 – 4. Here, it was undisputed that Lewis had a large backlog of work and refused to perform tasks associated with her position. For these reasons, the Seventh Circuit affirmed that no reasonable jury could find that Lewis’s disability was the sole cause of her termination. Id.
Lewis also failed to create a triable issue of pretext. Lewis claimed that INDOT was looking for a reason to terminate her after she requested and received an accommodation. Following Monroe v. Indiana Department of Transportation, 871 F.3d 495, 505 (7th Cir. 2017), and Argyropoulos v. City of Alton, 539 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2008), the Seventh Circuit explained that the question is whether INDOT honestly believed its stated reason. Lewis, supra, 2026 WL 1090714 at *4. To establish otherwise requires a “lie, specifically a phony reason for some action.” Id., quoting Argyropoulos, supra, 539 F.3d at 726. Notably, here, Lewis was not able to contest the fact of her large backlog of work and refusal to perform tasks. Lewis, supra, 2026 WL 1090714 at *4.
For a retaliation claim under the Rehabilitation Act, the Seventh Circuit precedent is inconsistent as to whether a plaintiff must show the protected activity was the but-for cause of the adverse action (Brooks v. Avancez, 39 F.4th 424, 440 (7th Cir. 2022)) or whether it is enough to show “retaliatory intent played a part in [the] termination” (Fuller v. McDonough, 84 F.4th 686, 691 (7th Cir. 2023)). Lewis, supra, 2026 WL 1090714 at *5. The Seventh Circuit rejected Lewis’s retaliation theories under both the stricter and more lenient causation standards because the record supported non-retaliatory reasons for discharge — namely because INDOT had sufficiently documented and had support for the productivity and performance concerns, which were unrelated to the fact that she filed a complaint. Id.
Finally, the Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the Title VII race discrimination and retaliation because the only evidence proffered by Lewis was that a white male colleague received a higher raise. Lewis did not develop this argument as she failed to provide sufficient comparator data or rebut INDOT’s explanation for the difference in the raise. Lewis, supra, 2026 WL 1090714 at *6.
Practical Implications for Employers
- Employers should maintain thorough documentation of employee performance issues and any disciplinary actions taken. This documentation can be crucial in defending against claims of discrimination or retaliation.
- Employers should ensure that all employees are treated consistently and that any disparities in treatment are justified by legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. This is particularly important in cases involving pay raises or promotions.
- Regular training for supervisors and human resources personnel on handling accommodation requests and performance issues can help prevent misunderstandings and potential claims. Clear communication with employees about performance expectations and performance issues is also essential.
- Be vigilant about actions that could be perceived as retaliatory, especially following an employee’s complaint or request for accommodation. Ensure that any adverse actions are based on documented performance issues rather than perceived retaliation.
For more information about employment and labor law, see EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION (IICLE®, 2026). Online Library subscribers can view it for free by clicking here. If you don’t currently subscribe to the Online Library, visit www.iicle.com/subscriptions.